CONSOLIDATION 
HAND  BOOK 


I 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/consolidationhanOOunse 


J 

U 

i 

t 

TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


§ 1.  What  the  Consolidation  Bill  means’. 

§ 2.  Early  history  of  the  consolidation  movement. 

§ 3.  History  of  the  present  bill. 

§ 4.  Reasons  for  limiting  the  site  to  Bozeman  and  Missoula.  One 
reason  for  the  commission  form  of  selecting  the  location. 

§ 5.  The  expenditure  argument  of  the  opponents  of  consolidation. 

§ 6.  The  land  needed  will  be  obtained  free  of  cost. 

§ 7.  Buildings  will  not  cost  more  for  the  consolidated  university 
than  will  be  needed  at  once  for  the  separate  schools. 

§ 8.  Cost  of  equipment  less  in  consolidated  schools. 

§ 9.  Saving  $100,000  a year  for  maintenance. 

§10.  Saving  equal  to  an  endowment  of  $2,000,000. 

§11.  Comparison  of  expenditures  in  Kansas  and  Nebraska  and  in 
Montana  and  Idaho. 

§12.  Instances  of  misleading  statements  by  politicians. 

§14.  Reasons  for  greater  expenditures  in  Wisconsin. 

§13.  Reasons  for  greater  expenditures  in  Illinois. 

§15  Cost  per  capita  of  higher  education  in  Montana,  Wisconsin, 
Illinois  and  Michigan. 

§16.  Value  of  having  students  of  all  kinds  mingle.  (From  Nebraska 
report. ) 

§17.  The  students  of  agriculture  are  not  looked  do'WTi  upon  in  the 
consolidated  schools. 

§18.  Schools  of  agriculture  in  consolidated  universities  attract  a 
larger  number  of  students  than  do  the  separate  schools. 

§19.  Consolidated  schools  attract  more  students  of  agriculture  from 
other  states  than  the  unconsolidated  schools. 

§20.  Neglect  of  agriculture  in  our  own  agricultural  college. 

§21.  The  consolidated  universities  develop  better  agricultural  experi- 
ment stations  than  the  uncons'olidated. 

§22.  Separate  schools  do  not  serve  a larger  number. 

§23.  Consolidated  schools  are  better  as  proved  by  the  number  of 
students  which  migrate  into  those  states.  A degree  from  a 
large  university  is  worth  more  in  dollars  and  cents  than  one 
from  a small  university. 


§24.  The  stronger  universities  have  undertaken  a large  amount  of 
public  service.  The  Wisconsin  idea. 

§25.  The  present  situation  in  Wisconsin. 

§26.  Is  Butte  the  best  place  for  the  School  of  Mines? 

§27.  Harmony  impossible  in  unconsolidated  schools. 

§28.  The  value  of  a united  alumni. 

§29.  The  separate  schools  are  a “trading  asset to  our  politicians. 
§30.  Selection  of  location  by  a commission. 

§31.  Consolidation  not  a breach  of  faith  with  towns  where  schools 
are  now  located. 

§32.  General  opinions  of  great  educators. 


Consolidation  Hand  Book 


WHAT  THE  CONSOLIDATION  BILL  PROVIDES. 

1.  The  Consolidation  Bill  provides  (1)  that  the  present  Univer- 
sity of  Montana,  the  College  of  Agriculture  and  Mechanic  Arts',  and 
the  School  of  Mines  be  consolidated  into  one  institution,  to  form  the 
University  of  Montana;  (2),  that  the  consolidated  school  be  located 
either  at  Bozeman,  or  Missoula;  (3),  that  the  choice  of  location  is  to 
be  made  by  a commission,  of  five  members  chosen  from  the  Presidents 
of  consolidated  State  Universities;  (4),  that  on  or  before  March  1st, 
1915,  this  commission  be  appointed  by  a committee  consisting  of  the 
Governor,  the  Chief  Justice,  and  the  State  Superintendent  of  Schools  ; 
(5),  that  this  commission  must  render  its  decision  on  or  before  August 
1st,  1915,  (6),  that  the  cities  of  Missoula  and  Bozeman  may  make 
offers  of  tracts  of  land  available  for  a site  for  the  University,  and 
the  terms  upon ‘which  such  site  may  be  obtained. 

A BRIEF  HISTORY  OF  THE  CONSOLIDATION 
MOVEMENT. 

2.  It  is  now  an  admitted  fact  that  when  the  state  schools  were 
located  in  the  early  nineties,  the  point  of  view  which  prevailed  was 
that  as  far  as  possible  the  various  towns  and  cities  of  the  State 
should  be  given  some  state  institution.  This  was  done  as  a mat- 
ter of  political  expediency  in  spite  of  the  opposition  offered  by  those 
more  interested  in  the  educational  welfare  of  the  state  than  in  divi- 
sion of  spoils.  At  that  time  some  of  our  leading  representatives  and 
senators  openly  stated  that  separation  of  the  state  schools  was  a 
crime.  At  that  time  also,  the  State  Council  of  Education  and  the 
State  Teachers’  Association  adopted  resolutions  in  favor  of  consolida- 
tion. The  leading  educators'  of  the  country  were  asked  their  opin- 
ions, and  they  unanimously  urged  that  the  higher  schools  of  the  state 
be  organized  as  one  institution.  Among  these  educators  were  the 
presidents  of  Leland  Stanford,  Johns  Hopkins,  The  University  of 
Chicago,  Harvard,  Cornell,  the  State  Universities  of  Minnesota,  Illi- 
nois, Iowa,  and  Nebraska ; and  the  United  States  Commissioner  of 
Education. 


After  this  initial  calamity,  the  friends  of  consolidation  took  no 
active  steps  until  1908,  when  President  Duniwa^^  of  the  University  of 
Montana  presented  a recommendation  for  consolidation  to  the  State 
Board  of  Education.  The  recommendation  was  pigeonholed.  Two 
years  ago  the  coming  winter,  a bill  for  consolidation  was  introduced 
into  the  state  legislature,  but  was’  defeated  in  the  senate  by  a vote 
of  17  to  12.  At  this  time  the  State  Board  of  Education  adopted  a 
resolution  favoring  consolidation. 

3.  The  present  bill  was  drawn  by  the  UNIVERSITY  CONSOL- 
IDATION COMMITTEE,  the  chairman  of  which,  Mr.  Paris  Gibson 
of  Great  Falls,  fought  for  consolidation  twenty  years  ago  in  the 
state  legislature.  This  committee,  consisting  of  representative  men 
from  the  various'  cities  of  Montana,  but  not  including  any  represent- 
ative from  either  Bozeman  or  Missoula,  drew  the  bill  so  that  by  its 
terms  the  consolidated  University  can  go  only  to  Bozeman  or  Mis- 
soula. 

4.  The  reasons  assigned  for  this  limiting  of  the  location  was 
that  the  most  important  of  the  schools  to  be  effected  were  located  in 
thes'e  cities,  and  that  therefore  the  rest  of  the  state  would  lose  noth- 
ing by  the  limitation,  and  that  at  the  same  time  it  was  highly  desir- 
able to  avoid  a state-wide  fight  of  the  character  of  the  capitol  fight. 
By  the  original  form  of  the  bill,  the  location  as  between  these  two 
towns  was  to  be  decided  by  a popular  vote.  This,  however,  would 
have  involved  delay  until  the  next  general  election,  or  an  expensive 
special  election.  For  these  reasons,  representatives  of  Bozeman  pro- 
posed that  the  matter  of  selection  of  location  be  delegated  to  a com- 
mission. The  Missoula  Chamber  of  Commerce  agreed  to  this  plan, 
and  the  University  Consolidation  Committee  therefore  modified  the 
bill  by  adopting  the  present  commission  plan. 

WILL  CONSOLIDATION  BE  A GOOD  FINANCIAL 
INVESTMENT? 

5.  The  opponents  of  consolidation  know  that  the  majority  of 
the  people  of  the  state  are  interested  in  the  rate  of  taxation.  Accord- 
ingly, they  have  made  their  first  and  most  elaborate  argument  on  the 
question  of  expenditure.  We  have  been  told  that  one  million  dollars 
will  be  needed  to  launch  the  proposed  institution,  and  that  besides 
this  the  state  will  have  to  surrender  property  to  the  value  of  many 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars,  and  that  consequently  “the  state 
will  have  to  assume  large  burdens  of  taxation  with  verv^  remote  pros- 
pects of  gain.”  This  is  precisely  the  ground  on  w^hich  those  favoring 
cons'olidation  are  most  anxious  to  meet  those  opposing  it.  The  quse- 
tion  of  expenditure  may  be  divided  into  two  parts ; first,  the  expendi- 

— 6 — 


ture  for  plant;  that  is,  for  grounds,  buildings,  and  equipment;  sec- 
ond, expenditure  for  maintenance. 

6.  Let  us  consider  first  the  matter  of  land.  Both  Bozeman  and 
Missoula  are  exceedingly  anxious  to  obtain  the  consolidated  univer- 
sity, and  there  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that  both  of  these  cities  will 
offer  to  provide,  free  of  expense  to  the  state,  all  the  ground  that  is 
required  both  for  campus  and  for  experiment  station ; that  is,  if  the 
consolidated  university  goes  to  Bozeman  the  city  of  Bozeman  will 
give  to  the  state  free  of  cost  all  the  land  that  the  consolidated  univer- 
sity will  require  for  all  its  purposes.  Indeed,  the  school  at  Bozeman 
now  possesses  the  1,000  acres  specified  in  the  bill.  If  the  school  goes 
to  Bozeman  there  will  therefore  be  no  need  to  obtain  land  either  by 
gift  or  purchase.  If  the  university  goes  to  Missoula,  citizens  of  Mis- 
soula will  provide  the  land  that  is  needed.  They  will  have  precisely 
the  same  reasons  for  donating  land  now  that  they  had  for  doing  the 
same  thing  twenty  years  ago.  The  people  of  Missoula  have  come  out 
practically  unanimously  in  support  of  consolidation,  and  they  are 
fully  prepared  to  offer  to  the  state  free  of  cost  the  finest  university 
campus  that  the  neighborhood  contains.  This  offer  will  cost  Missoula 
nothing  if  the  university  goes  to  Bozeman  and  will  be  the  best  invest- 
ment Missoula  could  make  if  as  a consequence  the  university  comes 
there.  Unscrupulous  politicians  have  already  attempted  to  appeal  to 
prejudice  by  suggesting  that  the  bill  plays  into  the  hands  of  real 
estate  sharks.  Would  it  not  be  astonishing  if  Paris  Gibson  of  Great 
Palls,  Superintendent  Davee  of  Helena  and  others'  should  be  in 
league  with  the  real  estate  interests  in  Bozeman  and  Missoula? 

7.  Now  as  to  buildings : Under  the  heading  ‘‘COST  LESS  FOR 
NEW  BUILDINGS,”  State  Superintendent  Davee  in  a recent  letter 
has  put  this  matter  in  a nut-shell. 

“They  say  it  will  take  a million  dollars  to  launch  a con- 
solidated institution.  I find  on  looking  up  records  that  these 
three  schools,  separated  as  they  are,  asked  the  last  legislature 
for  buildings  to  cost  $315,000,  and  no  one  who  has  ever  been 
at  either  place  will  contend  that  they  do  not  need  them.  If  we 
could  combine  these  requirements,  and  put  the  buildings  actu- 
ally needed  at  both  Bozeman  and  Missoula  at  one  of  these 
places,  the  consolidated  university  would  be  cared  for  more 
efficiently  than  it  is  now  at  the  three  places.” 

When  we  observe  that  the  total  cost  of  all  the  buildings  on  the 
city  campus’  at  the  University  of  Nebraska,  with  its  3,500  students,  is 
only  about  $800,000,  it  is  evident  that  $300,000  to  $400,000  additional 
either  at  Bozeman  or  Missoula  would  be  adequate  for  some  time.  Even 

—7— 


if  we  do  have  to  abandon  a few  buildings,  that  is  not  a valid  objec- 
tion to  consolidation  if  the  net  result  to  the  state  is  a financial  gain. 
In  the  business  world  such  things  are  done  every  day.  Machinery 
that  costs  millions'  is  put  in  the  scrap  heap  in  order  to  save  money  by 
installing  more  efficient  machinery.  Manufacturing  plants  are  aban- 
doned for  the  sake  of  economy  in  order  to  do  the  work  at  more  favor- 
able places. 

8.  Again,  as  to  equipment.  State  Superintendent  Davee’s  words 
are  to  the  point: 

‘‘The  statement  has  been  made  that  it  will  cost  more  to 
maintain  a consolidated  institution  than  to  run  the  three  insti- 
tutions separately.  Such  a statement  needs  no  answer.  Every- 
one knows  that  it  need  cost  no  more,  even  if  we  carried  dupli- 
cation to  the  extent  that  we  do  under  the  present  arrangement. 
Every  business  man  knows  that  one  set  of  administrative  offi- 
ers  could  manage  the  affairs  of  a consolidated  institution. 
One  library,  one  chemical  laboratory,  one  gymnasium,  one  set 
of  buildings,  and  so  on  ad  libitum.  ‘The  duplication  of  equip- 
ment and  instruction  is  a policy  which  leads  not  only  to  eco- 
nomic waste,  but  what  is  more  important,  to  a lack  of  highest 
efficiency  in  teaching  and  investigation.  ’ ' ’ 

CONSOLIDATION  WILL  SAVE  UPWARD  OF  $100,000  PER 
YEAR  FOR  MAINTENANCE. 

Again  we  quote  from  Superintendent  Davee : 

9.  “The  appropriation  for  the  School  of  Mines  for  the  year 
just  past,  was  $32,500,  and  just  one  additional  professor,  at 
$2,500,  added  to  the  faculty  of  the  Agricultural  College  would 
have  made  it  possible  for  that  institution  to  handle  this  work, 
in  splendid  shape,  without  interfering  with  its  regular  classes, 
except  to  make  some  of  them  large  enough  to  be  really  worth 
while. 

“Not  only  this,  but  the  mining  students  would  have  a 
much  better  opportunity  at  the  Agricultural  College,  for  the 
present  course  at  the  School  of  Mines  is  purely  technical  and 
there  is  no  opportunity  for  any  of  its'  students  to  take  advan- 
tage of  courses  in  literature,  history,  economies,  sociology,  or 
any  of  the  courses  which  vitalize  and  make  college  life  worth 
while.  So,  by  combining  the  School  of  Mines  with  the  Agri- 
cultural College,  we  could  not  only  give  the  boys  a better  train- 
ing, but  we  could  actually  save  $30,000  in  cost  of  maintenance 
each  year. 


—8— 


“In  regard  to  the  cost  of  maintaining  the  other  two  insti- 
tutions, for  convenience  I am  going  to  take  the  Agricultural 
College  as  a nucleus,  becaus'e  of  the  fact  that  this  institution 
gets  aid  from  the  Federal  Government  in  addition  to  its  state 
appropriations,  hence  its  funds  are  not  so  easily  analyzed.  The 
appropriation  for  the  University  at  Missoula  last  year  was  in 
round  numbers  $157,000.  Of  this  amount  approximately 
$66,000  was'  spent  for  a faculty  and  $10,000  for  the  summer 
school,  making  a total  of  $76,000,  thus  leaving  $81,000  for 
maintenance  over  and  above  the  cost  of  the  faculty  and  the 
summer  school.  Now,  Mr.  Taxpayer,  suppose  we  would  take 
the  entire  faculty  of  the  University  and  combine  it  with  the 
faculty  of  the  Agricultural  College,  no  one  would  pretend  that 
they  could  not  do  this  work  as  well  as  they  do  now,  and  any- 
one who  knows  A,  B,  C,  about  this  work,  knows  that  at  the 
present  time  they  would  not  have  places  for  all  the  members  of 
the  combined  faculties.  In  fact,  less  than  half  of  the  Univer- 
sity faculty  added  to  the  faculty  of  the  Agricultural  College 
would  give  more  efficient  instruction  than  both  of  the  institu- 
tions, separated  as  they  now  are.  But  suppose  that  we  add 
all  the  faculty  of  the  University  to  that  of  the  Agricultural 
College  and  throw  in  $10,000  for  the  summer  school,  we  would 
still  be  able  to  save  the  state  $81,000  on  the  appropriation  for 
maintenance.  This  leaves  only  a problem  in  addition,  $81,000 
from  the  University  plus  $30,000  from  the  School  of  Mines 
make  $111,000  saved  to  the  people  of  the  state. 

SAVING  EQUAL  TO  $2,000,000  ENDOWMENT. 

10.  ‘ ‘ But  some  say  that  it  will  cost  more  to  maintain  an  insti- 

tution of  this  kind  than  either  one  of  the  present  schools.  No 
one  will  deny  this,  but  we  have  already  thrown  in  enough  for 
the  extra  office  help,  heat,  light,  and  general  upkeep  that 
would  be  required,  by  allowing  for  salaries  of  all  the  teachers 
of  both  faculties.  However,  just  for  good  measure,  we  will 
thrown  in  an  extra  $11,000  and  still  be  $100,000  to  the  good. 
Figured  as  an  endowment,  this  would  be  equal  to  an  invest- 
ment of  $2,000,000  at  5%  and  this  annual  saving  of  $100,000, 
which  would  be  greater  as  the  years  go  by,  would  provide  for 
all  the  buildings  the  state  will  ever  need  for  its  educational 
institutions.  ’ ’ 

11.  When  we  come  actually  to  consider  the  expenditure  of  main- 
tenance in  American  universities,  difficulties  arise  because  some  of 
these  Universities  perform  more  services  for  the  people  of  the  state 


than  do  others.  After  looking  over  the  list  of  universities  with  this' 
in  mind,  it  appears  that  the  two  higher  educational  institutions  of 
Kansas  (unconsolidated),  and  the  consolidated  University  of  Ne- 
braska, perform  very  near  the  same  services  for  their  respective  state. 
The  cost  for  maintenance  for  one  year  per  student  in  the  consolidated 
University  of  Nebraska  is  $170,  while  the  cost  of  maintenance  per 
year  per  student  in  the  two  separate  institutions  of  Kansas  is  $224. 
That  is,  performing  the  same  services  for  the  state  of  Kansas  in  two 
separate  institutions  costs  $54  per  year  per  student  more  than  it  does 
in  the  consolidated  school  of  Nebraska.  If  the  cost  in  Kansas  were 
the  same  per  student  as  in  Nebraska,  this  would  afford  an  annual 
saving  to  the  state  of  Kansas  of  $290,000,  which  is  equivalent  to  5% 
interest  on  nearly  $6,000,000.  The  people  of  Kansas  could  afford  to 
abandon  or  give  away  both  of  the  present  higher  educational  plants, 
and  build  one  of  the  best  equipped  universities  in  the  United  States 
and  still  come  out  ahead  on  the  deal.  The  same  sort  of  a comparison 
may  be  used  with  regard  to  Montana  (unconsolidated)  and  Idaho, 
(consolidated).  Montana  for  the  year  closing  last  June  had  615  col- 
lege students,  at  an  expense  of  $410,000  or  about  $670  per  student. 
For  the  same  year  Idaho  had  479  college  students,  at  an  expense  of 
$234,000,  or  about  $490  per  student.  Thus  for  substantially  the  same 
service  Montana  spent  about  $125,000  more  than  Idaho. 

11.  The  opponents  of  consolidation  have  shovui  a singular  in- 
ability or  unwillingness  to  handle  statistics  decently.  They  are  evi- 
dently assuming  that  the  voters  will  not  take  the  trouble  to  verify 
their  figures.  We  have  been  told  that  the  Universit}^  of  California 
spends  over  $3,000,000  a year  for  maintenance,  whereas  the  truth  is 
they  spend  less*  than  half  that.  A million  and  a half  was  given  to 
the  University  for  endowment  and  this  the  anti-consolidationist  statis- 
tician proceeded  to  spend  for  maintenance.  (See  an  anonymous  letter 
in  the  current  number  of  the  Inter-Mountain  Educator).  We  have 
been  told  that  the  University  of  Wisconsin  cost  every  man,  woman 
and  child  of  the  state  $6.50  per  year.  The  truth  is  that  the  greatest 
expenditure  ever  made  in  any  one  year  for  the  University  of  Wiscon- 
sin was  less  than  one  dollar  per  capita  for  the  state.  This  included 
a half  a million  for  new  buildings.  They  are  telling  us  that  taxes  in 
Wisconsin  have  gone  up  on  account  of  the  University.  The  truth  is 
that  the  rate  of  taxation  has  been  falling  steadily  in  Wisconsin  since 
1900  though  the  total  amount  has  risen.  The  corporation  tax  alone 
yields  over  $2,000,000  yearly  in  that  state. 

—10— 


12.  But  wc  may  safely  assume  that  before  the  campaign  is  over 
this  grosser  type  of  misrepresentation  will  give  way  to  more  subtle 
Avork. 

The  opponents  of  consolidation  Avill  be  sure  to  point  out  that 
the  expenditures  of  such  Universities  as'  those  of  Illinois,  Wisconsin 
and  Minnesota  are  very  large  in  comparison  vdth  the  expenditures 
for  the  separate  schools  in  such  states  as  Iowa,  Indiana  and  Ohio, 
and  they  aatII  give  apparently  accurate  figures  to  substantiate  their 
statements'. 

It  is  quite  true  that  the  Universities  of  Illinois,  Wisconsin  and 
Minnesota  are  expensive,  but  the  reason  is  not  that  they  are  consol- 
idated, but  rather  that  they  are  such  excellent  institutions  that  the 
states  are  entrusting  to  them  a large  amount  of  work,  which  the  other 
states  do  not  entrust  to  any  of  their  schools.  Thus  the  University  of 
Illinois  is  undertaking  an  agricultural  survey  of  the  whole  state 
Avhich  Avill  describe  every  ten-acre  lot  in  the  state.  When  this  survey 
is  completed  any  farmer  in  the  state  may  write  to  the  University  to 
obtain  expect  advice  on  how  to  treat  every  piece  of  field  on  his'  farm. 
Lavst  year  the  University  of  Illinois  employed  103  salaried  workers 
besides  ordinary  laborers  in  the  division  of  agricultural  experimenta- 
tation.  The  following  bureaus  are  also  parts  of  the  University:  The 
State  Laboratory  of  Natural  History,  employing  five  investigators; 
the  State  Entomologist’s  office,  Avith  a staff  of  8;  the  State  Water 
survey,  with  a staff  of  16 ; the  State  Geological  survey,  Avith  a staff 
of  16 ; the  co-operative  investigators  of  Illinois  coal  problems  and  the 
Mine  Rescue  Station  with  a staff  of  17. 

The  University  of  Wisconsin  among  the  many  other  activities 
maintains  an  extension  department  which  last  year  enrolled  over 
6,000  in  correspondence  study. 

When  besides  all  these  expensive  actiAuties  which  these  states  have 
seen  fit  to  center  in  their  Universities,  we  consider  their  magnificent 
equipments,  their  libraries  of  from  tAvo  hundred  to  three  hundred 
thousand  volumes  each,  their  engineering  schools  Avhich  compete  on  a 
basis  of  equality  with  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology,  their 
Schools  of  Agriculture,  which  rank  AAuth  that  of  Cornell;  when  we 
consider  the  high  character  of  the  graduate  departments  Avhich  attract 
graduate  students  to  these  Universities,  tAvice  as  great  as  the  number 
of  students  at  J ohns  Hopkins,  and  nearly  equal  to  the  number  of 
graduate  students  at  Chicago  and  Harvard;  when  Ave  consider  all 
these  things,  the  higher  cost  of  these  Universities  to  their  respective 
States,  is  more  than  accounted  for.  We  must  remember  that  these 
extra  activities  are  by  no  means  the  direct  consequences  of  consolida- 
tion, though  they  Avould  be  utterly  impossible  AAuthout  consolidation. 


—11— 


13.  After  the  University  of  Montana  is  consolidated  it  will  lie 
entirely  with  the  legislature  of  the  state  to  decide  what  extra  services' 
are  to  be  demanded  of  the  University.  If  the  University  is  to  be 
limited  to  its  teaching  functions  there  is  no  reason  why  it  should  be 
more  expensive  for  maintenance  than  any  other  school  thus  limited. 

14.  Let  us  look  at  this  from  another  angle.  The  population  of 
the  State  of  Wisconsin  is  about  five  times  that  of  Montana,  counting 
the  population  of  Montana  at  present  as  one-half  million;  while  its 
yearly  expenditure  for  maintenance  of  the  University  is  just  a little 
more  than  three  and  one  half  times  Montana’s  total  expenditure  for 
the  maintenance  of  her  three  schools.  The  population  of  Illinois  is 
at  least  ten  times  that  of  Montana,  while  the  yearly  expenditure  for 
the  maintenance  of  her  University  is  less  than  four  times  that  of 
Montana.  The  population  of  Michigan  is  nearly  six  times  that  of 
Montana,  while  the  yearly  expenditure  of  the  University  of  Michigan 
for  maintenance  is  just  about  twice  what  Montana  pays  yearly  for. 
higher  education ; and  still  there  were  forty-three  Montana  students  in 
the  University  of  Wisconsin  last  year,  and  also  forty-three  at  the 
University  of  Michigan.  It  should  be  understood  that  in  computing 
the  cost  of  maintenance  to  the  state,  only  such  sums  have  been  given 
as  actually  were  appropriated  by  the  state  for  Maintenance,  together 
with  incomes  from  public  endowment  and  from  other  public  sources. 
Items  like  tuition  fees  and  payment  for  board  have  been  omitted,  as 
have  also  appropriations  for  buildings  and  enlargement  of  plant. 

THE  AGRICULTURE  SCHOOL  IN  THE  CONSOLIDATED  UNI- 
VERSITY IS  BETTER  FOR  THE  STUDENTS  AND 
THE  STATE  THAN  THE  SEPARATE  AGRI- 
CULTURE SCHOOL. 

16.  A commission  of  college  presidents,  consisting  of  W.  0. 
Thompson,  Ohio  University  (unconsolidated),  Charles  R.  Van  Hise, 
Wisconsin  (consolidated),  John  L.  Snyder,  Michigan  Agriculture 
College  (unconsolidated),  a separate  agriculture  college,  George  E. 
Vincent,  Minnesota  (consolidated),  in  a report  submitted  only  two  or 
three  months  ago  to  the  people  of  Nebraska,  find  without  qualifica- 
tion that  the  consolidated  school  is  better  for  the  agriculture  student 
and  their  statement  follows': 

“The  separation  of  any  class  of  students  into  separate 
institutions  because  they  are  studying  agriculture,  engineering 
or  any  other  special  subject  is  not  regarded  as  wise  public  pol- 
icy. The  state  university  should  be  a source  of  unity  rather 

—II— 


than  division.  In  working  out  the  problems  of  society  it  will 
be  the  battling  ground  of  democracy.  Here  more  than  else- 
where as  reference  to  the  sources,  religious,  social,  political  and 
occupational  from  which  the  students  come  will  show,  there  is’ 
to  be  found  the  most  typical  and  representative  American  con- 
stituency. Under  these  conditions  it  would  be  most  unfortu- 
nate for  any  State  with  its  revenues  derived  from  taxation  to 
give  the  slightest  countenance  to  stratification  in  education. 
The  free  mingling  of  all  classes  of  students  in  the  same  class 
rooms,  upon  the  same  campuses',  in  the  same  athletic  sports 
and  in  the  same  social  life  will  profoundly  influence  the  ideals 
of  these  students  during  life.  In  the  student  companionship 
as  every  college  bred  man  or  woman  knows,  the  acquaintances 
are  most  thorough  going.  No  sham  or  pretense  passes  unnoticed 
or  without  rebuke.  The  students  of  agriculture,  of  engineer- 
ing or  education  in  preparation  for  teaching,  of  science  or  of 
law,  come  to  know  each  other  intimately  and  to  estimate  each 
other  upon  a basis  of  merit  or  the  lack  of  it.  This  mutual 
acquaintance  and  sympathy  furnishes  a splendid  foundation 
for  the  unprejudiced  consideration  of  the  vexatious  but  not 
insoluble  problems'  of  American  Democracy.’’ 

17.  Contrary  to  the  view  of  some  people  the  Agricultural  stu- 
dents in  a consolidated  university  is  not  looked  down  upon.  He  stands 
distinctly  on  his  own  merits  just  as  any  other  student  does.  The 
following  are  statements'  made  during  the  last  month  by  presidents 
of  consolidated  Universities. 

President  Benjamin  I.  Wheeler,  University  of  California: 

‘‘The  students  themselves'  scarcely  know  that  a man  be- 
longs to  the  Agriculture  College.  Naturally,  students  of  agri- 
culture take  part  of  their  work  in  other  departments  of  the 
University,  for  instance,  chemistry,  botany,  biology,  and  they 
all  mix  together  in  the  great  mass.  ’ ’ 

President  A.  A.  Murphree,  University  of  Florida: 

“The  Agriculture  College  has  a large  representation  in 
the  fraternities,  and  some  of  the  best  families  in  the  State  are 
represented  in  that  College.  Some  of  the  most  popular  men 
in  school  are  students  from  the  agriculture  department,  who 
are  attending  college  on  their  own  resources.” 

President  Edmund  J.  James,  University  of  Illinois : 

“The  ‘Aggies,’  as  they  are  called  in  a term  of  affection, 
rather  dominate  the  situation.”  (About  one-third  of  the  reg- 

—13— 


ular  undergraduate  registration  in  tiie  University  of  Illinois 
is  in  the  College  of  Agriculture). 

President  George  E.  Vincent,  University  of  Minnesota: 

“Agriculture  is  so  popular  in  Minnesota,  and  the  young 
men  and  women  who  are  going  in  for  Agriculture,  Forestry, 
and  Home  Economics,  are  of  so  fine  a type  that  any  patronage 
might  easily  run  in  the  other  direction.” 

President  A.  Ross  Hill,  University  of  Missouri : 

“I  cannot  tell  an  Agriculture  student  from  any  other 
until  I am  informed,  and  in  all  matters  of  student  politics, 
social  recognition,  fraternity  membership,  and  in  other  re- 
spects, agricultural,  academic  and  professional  students  asso- 
ciate on  equal  terms.  At  present  the  president  of  the  student 
body,  elected  by  the  students  from  all  divisions  of  the  Uni- 
versity, is  a senior  in  agriculture.  Last  year  the  president 
was  a senior  in  law,  and  the  ear  before  he  was  a senior  in  arts 
and  science.  ’ ’ 

The  use  of  such  expressions  as  “Cow  College,”  “Farmers,” 
“Corn  Huskers,”  and  etc.,  are  reserved  for  those  schools  of  agri- 
culture which  are  separated  from  the  great  university. 

18.  In  general  the  consolidated  university  attracts  a larger 
number  of  students  in  proportion  to  the  rural  population,  than  does 
the  separate  agriculture  school. 

Number  of  students  in  Agriculture  for  every  100,000  of  rural 
population. 

( Consolidated ) ( Unconsolidated ) 


Illinois  

120 

Indiana  

47 

Minnesota  

217 

Iowa  

118 

Nebraska  

130 

Kansas  

102 

Wisconsin  

109 

Michigan  

73 

The  average  number  from  the  four  consolidated  states  is  144, 
while  from  the  unconsolidated  states  it  is  85.  In  the  case  of  Iowa,  230 
non-collegiate  students  are  included  which  runs  the  number  up 
rather  high  in  that  state. 

In  general  the  catalogues  of  unconsolidated  schools  are  so  padded 
that  comparisons  of  this  sort  are  more  in  their  favor  than  they 
should  be. 

Dr.  Henry  S.  Pritchett,  president  of  the  Carnegie  Foundation, 
knows  the  general  conditions  in  American  colleges  better  than  any 
other  man.  In  an  address  delivered  at  the  University  of  California 
in  1910  he  spoke  as  follows : (See  the  “Sunset”  for  May,  1910.) 

“The  strongest  appeal  to  the  legislator  has  hitherto  been 


— 14 


on  the  score  of  numbers.  When  the  member  of  the  legislature 
was  told  that  the  state  university  or  the  state  school  of  agri- 
culture and  mechanic  arts  was  overcrowded  by  the  hundreds 
of  students  which  thronged  its  halls,  he  has  not  generally  given 
any  thought  to  the  method  by  which  these  students  were  brought 
there ; still  less  did  he  appreciate  that  in  many  cases  they  were 
obtained  by  the  rankest  advertising  and  by  openly  robbing  the 
high  schools.  For  the  purpose  of  impressing  the  legislature,  a 
student  was  a student,  whether  he  was  studying  elementary 
arithmetic  in  the  sub-freshman  classes  or  scientific  agriculture 
in  the  college.  The  registration  lists  in  some  of  these  colleges 
of  agriculture  and  mechanic  arts  remind  one  of  the  inventory 
of  a Kansas'  farmer  who,  in  advertisment  of  an  auction  sale, 
announced  thirty-two  head  of  stock.  When  the  stock  came  to 
be  sold  the  thirty-two  head  were  found  to  embrace  two  horses, 
one  mule,  a cow  and  twenty-eight  chickens.^’ 

At  this  particular  time  and  for  some  years  past  the  unconsoli- 
dated schools  of  Iowa  have  been  engaged  in  an  unusually  fierce  strug- 
gle which  makes  any  statistics  from  them  open  to  grave  suspicion. 

19.  The  consolidated  university  attracts  more  agriculture  stu- 
dents from  outside  the  state  than  does  the  unconsolidated.  This  is  one 
way  of  showing  the  superior  excellence  of  a school  of  agriculture. 

The  following  table  shows  the  migration  of  students  in  agriculture 
in  the  four  states  of  Wisconsin,  Illinois,  Michigan  and  Indiana.  (Wis- 
consin and  Illinois  are  consolidated,  Michigan  and  Indiana  are  uncon- 


solidated). 

Year  1913-14. 

Students  from  Indiana  at  Wisconsin 15 

“ Wisconsin  at  Purdue  (Ind.) 0 

“ ‘ ‘ Indiana  at  Illinois' 40 

Illinois  at  Purdue  (Ind.)  7 

‘‘  Michigan  at  Wisconsin 9 

‘‘  “ Wisconsin  at  Michigan 2 

‘‘  ‘‘  Michigan  at  Illinois 8 

“ ‘‘  Illinois  at  Michigan 2 


These  figures  show  that  while  15  families  in  Indiana  thought  that 
the  Wisconsin  School  of  Agriculture  is'  sufficiently  better  than  that 
of  their  home  state  of  Indiana  to  justify  them  in  sending  their  boys 
several  hundred  miles  further  from  home,  there  was  no  family  in 
Wisconsin  which  thought  it  worth  while  to  send  their  boys  to  Indiana 
rather  than  to  Wisconsin  to  study  agriculture.  There  were  forty 

—16— 


families  in  Indiana  who  thought  the  school  at  the  University  of 
Illinois  was  sufficiently  better  than  the  school  of  agriculture  at  their 
home  college  at  Purdue  to  send  their  boys  out  of  the  state,  while  only 
seven  families  in  Illinois  found  reason  to  send  their  boys  to  Indiana. 
The  ratio  between  Michigan  and  Wisconsin  in  this  respect  is  2.9  and 
that  between  Michigan  and  Illinois  is  2.8.  These  figures  are  too 
striking  to  be  accidental,  and  it  is  not  at  all  likely  that  the  people 
of  these  states  are  mistaken  as  to  the  relative  merits  of  these  agricul- 
ture colleges  to  the  extent  indicated  by  these  figures.'  The  following 
table  shows  the  total  number  of  students  from  other  states  studying 
agriculture  at  these  colleges : 

Unconsolidated. 


Indiana  34 

Michigan  86 

Consolidated, 

Illinois  - 182 

Wisconsin  229 


It  is  perfectly  evident  that  people  who  are  vitally  interested  in 
the  character  of  agricultural  colleges  believe  by  a large  majority  that 
the  schools'  at  the  consolidated  universities  of  Wisconsin  and  Illinois 
are  distinctly  superior  to  the  separate  agricultural  colleges  of  Indiana 
and  Michigan. 

20.  In  comparison  with  the  other  schools  of  agriculture  our  own 
state  college  has  failed  signally  in  interesting  young  people  in  the 
study  of  agriculture. 

Of  a total  of  63  degrees  conferred  in  the  last  three  years,  only 
12  were  in  agriculture.  During  the  last  four  years  about  one-eighth 
of  the  reported  number  of  students  were  in  agriculture.  In  Illinois 
and  Wisconsin  about  one-third  of  the  student  body  are  in  agriculture 
and  in  Minnesota  about  one-half  are  in  agriculture.  By  the  catalogue 
of  1912-13  of  our  state  college  of  161  alumni  26  were  reported  as  in 
agricultural  pursuits’,  14  in  actual  farming.  The  catalogue  of  1911-12 
reported  five  farmers  in  an  alumni  of  139 ; compare  with  this  the  fol- 
lowing data  as  to  Illinois  and  Minnesota. 

Prom  a recent  letter  from  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture.  Former  agricultural  students  on  farms  or  in  allied 
pursuits'. 

University  of  Illinois:  99  per  cent  or  502  out  of  506  former 
students  are  in  farming  or  allied  pursuits.  Farmers,  349  or  69  per 
cent.  Teachers  and  investigators,  104  or  20  per  cent.  Veterinary  sur- 
geons, 49  or  10  per  cent.  Pour  in  work  unrelated  to  farming. 

University  of  Minnesota:  72  per  cent  of  all  farm  students  of 


—16— 


agriculture  are  in  farming  or  in  allied  pursuits.  Almost  100  per  cent 
excluding  boys  and  girls  from  Minneapolis  and  St.  Paul. 

In  a personal  letter  President  Vincent  of  Minnesota  writes, 
(September  10,  1914).  “Of  our  college  of  agriculture  students’,  95 
per  cent  are  engaged  in  pursuits  which  have  a bearing  on  agricul- 
ture. Of  our  agricultural  school  graduates  66  per  cent  are  on  the 
farm,  and  14  per  cent  go  into  work  directly  connected  with  farming.” 

THE  CONSOLIDATED  UNIVERSITIES  DEVELOP  BETTER 
EXPERIMENT  STATIONS  THAN  DO  THE 
SEPARATE  SCHOOLS. 

One  function  of  the  Agricultural  College  is  to  conduct  investiga- 
tions on  the  problems  of  Agriculture.  Such  investigations  when  con- 
ducted by  able  men  and  with  adequate  equipment,  will  always  attract 
advanced  students  who  will  work  for  the  higher  collegiate  degrees. 
During  the  year  of  1912-13  the  degree  of  Master  of  Science  with 
Agriculture  as  the  subject  of  research,  was  granted  in  the  following 
six  institutions  in  numbers  as  follows : 


Unconsolidated 

Consolidated 

Indiana 

1 

Illinois  

..  10 

Kansas  

1 

Nebraska  

..  5 

Michigan  

1 

Wisconsin  

..  13 

The  difference  between  these  two  columns  is  too  marked  to  require 
comment.  The  subjects  which  were  investigated  by  the  candidates  for 
these  degrees  were  such  as  “Agricultural  Economy,”  “Plant  Path- 
ology,” “Experimental  Breeding,”  and  “Agricultural  Chemistry.” 
The  total  number  of  graduate  students  in  agriculture  for  the  year  of 
1913-14  in  these  schools  were  as  follows : 


Unconsolidated 

Consolidated 

Indiana  

3 

Illinois  

. 33 

Kansas  

7 

Nebraska  

. 25 

Michigan  

5 

Wisconsin  

. 85 

In  a bulletin  issued  by  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Agriculture,  which 
gives  popular  resumes  of  useful  work  in  the  Agricultural  Experiment 
Stations  for  the  period  of  1897  to  1914,  the  name  of  the  Montana 
Station  is  mentioned  nine  times,  while  87  Wisconsin  experiments  are 
described ; Cornell  has  72,  and  Illinois  52,  of  its  experiments  described. 
Perhaps'  the  greatest  reason  for  the  neglect  of  agriculture  in  the  sep- 
arate agricultural  colleges  is  that  nearly  all  such  schools  are  striving 
to  become  Universities.  This  they  seek  to  do  by  developing  strong 
schools  of  engineering.  On  this  point  a late  report  of  the  Carnegie 
Foundation  says : 


—17— 


“Unless’  experience  fails,  the  concentration  of  engineering 
at  the  college  of  agriculture  will  cause  the  engineering  to  run 
away  with  the  agriculture.  This  is  only  natural,  because  engi- 
neering is  a standardized  subject,  easy  to  establish  and  admin- 
ister, while  agricultural  education  is  still  in  the  formative 
period,  and  presents  constructive  problems  of  much  difficulty. 
Nor  does  the  history  of  the  Montana  College  of  Agriculture  and 
Mechanic  Arts  hold  out  much  hope  that  it  will  avoid  this 
danger.  That  history  is  the  familiar  one  of  attempting  every- 
thing except  the  principal  duty  straight  ahead.  Its  recent  pub- 
lication indicate  that  the  latest  action  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion has  filled  it  with  the  hope  of  becoming  a large  institute  of 
technology.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  admirable  movement 
to  create  a ‘greater  University  of  Montana’  has  not  led  to  more 
practical  results.” 

The  following  letters  throw  a flood  of  light  on  the  subject. 
OPINIONS  OF  EDUCATORS. 

President  George  E.  Vincent,  University  of  Minnesota,  September 
9th,  1914: 

‘ ‘ I firmly  believe  that  the  agricultural  education  gains  im- 
mensely from  the  scientific  atmosphere  and  social  spirit  of  the 
unified  University.  It  is  also  true  that  the  agricultural  group 
makes'  a valuable  contribution  to  the  work  and  ideas  of  the 
academic  and  professional  group.  To  segregate  agricultural 
education  is  to  attach  a stigma  to  it  and  to  curtail  its  influence 
and  efficiency.” 

President  Brown  Ayers,  University  of  Tennessee,  September 
16th,  1914: 

“I  do  not  think  there  is  any  question  of  the  great  advant- 
age, both  from  an  economic  and  social  point  of  view,  of  the 
consolidated  University  as  against  the  separate  agricultural  and 
other  colleges.” 

President  Frank  B.  Trotter,  (Acting  President)  University 
of  West  Virginia,  September  15th,  1914: 

“In  my  opinion  the  advantages  of  a consolidated  Univer- 
sity are  very  much  superior  to  those  of  the  separate  schools.  In 
our  case  it  would  require  us  to  duplicate  our  departments  of 
English,  Chemistry,  Botany  and  Biology",  which  would  almost 
double  the  expense.  ’ ’ 


—18- 


r 


President  Benjamin  I.  Wheeler,  University  of  California,  Sep- 
tember 8tli,  1914: 

‘ ‘ There  can  be  but  one  answer  to  the  question  of  consolida- 
tion. Anybody  who  has  had  any  real  experience  with  it  knows 
that  segregation  of  the  Agricultural  College  can  be  brought 
about  only  with  injury  to  itself.  The  leading  Agricultural 
Colleges  of  the  country,  beyond  a doubt,  are  those  which  are 
merged  into  the  Universities.  Take  for  instance  Wisconsin, 
Illinois,  Cornell,  Minnesota.” 

President  Melville  A.  Brannon,  University  of  Idaho,  September 
8th,  1914 : 

' ‘ I believe  very  decidedly  in  the  consolidated  University  of 
Idaho.  It  seems  to  me  that  in  this  State,  at  least,  the  agricul- 
tural interests  should  be  backed  up  by  the  intensive  and  reliable 
research  laboratories  of  the  University.  ’ ’ 

President  Edmund  J.  James,  University  of  Illinois,  September 
9th,  1914: 

“I  have  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  consolidated  Univer- 
sity, i e.,  the  University  with  all  the  colleges  in  one  place,  and 
under  one  administration,  is  far  superior  to  a divided  Univer- 
sity for  the  Agricultural  students  as  well  as*  for  the  students  in 
other  departments.” 

22.  It  is  claimed  that  the  separate  schools  reach  a larger  number 
of  students  than  do  the  consolidated  schools.  On  this  point  we  again 
quote  Mr.  Davee. 

'‘We  hear  it  stated  that  these  schools'  reach  more  people, 
scattered  as  they  now  are.  This  can  only  apply  to  the  work  in 
liberal  arts  given  at  both  Missoula  and  Bozeman.  It  does  not 
apply  to  the  College  of  Engineering  or  Agriculture  for  this 
work  is  given  only  at  Bozeman.  It  cannot  apply  to  law  or 
forestry,  for  this  work  is  all  given  at  Missoula.  Nor  can  it 
apply  in  mining,  for  this  work  is'  all  given  in  Butte.  Thus  a 
boy  living  in  Missoula  must  go  to  Bozeman  if  he  wishes  to  take 
engineering  or  agriculture,  and  a Bozeman  boy  wishing  to  take 
law  or  forestry  must  go  to  Missoula.  In  order  to  make  this 
segregation  argument  effective,  even  more  schools  should  be 
organized  especially  in  engineering  and  agriculture,  for  these 
should  be  the  most  popular  departments  and  hence  should  be 
put  as  near  the  people  as  possible.  ’ ’ 

The  argument,  therefore,  dwindles  into  significance.  It  applies 
only  to  those  young  people  in  Missoula,  Butte  and  Bozeman,  w^ho  are 
willing  to  study  those  particular  subjects  which  are  offered  in  their 


—19— 


own  schools,  just  because  the  school  is  conveniently  located.  We  must 
make  it  clear  to  ourselves  that  this  argument  applies  only  to  a very 
small  class  of  students'  in  these  cities  and  in  their  vicinity.  All  the 
rest  of  the  state  is  left  untouched  by  it. 

In  legislating  for  the  State  the  people  at  Bozeman,  Butte  and 
Missoula  should  not  receive  a consideration  above  that  given  the  people 
at  Billings,  Lewistown,  Helena,  Great  Falls,  Kalispell  and  numerous 
other  towns  throughout  the  State.  If  we  disregard  Butte,  which  has 
only  the  School  of  Mines,  where  about  thirty-five  young  men  from 
Butte  are  studying,  either  of  the  remaining  two  places,  and  its  imme- 
diate vicinity,  does  not  contain  one-twentieth  of  the  population  of  the 
State.  How  far  are  we  justified  in  considering  the  welfare  of  this 
one-twentieth  over  and  above  the  welfare  of  the  nineteen-twentieths 
of  the  population  of  the  State.  Are  we  justified  in  making  it  more 
convenient  for  one-twentieth  of  the  population  of  the  state  to  attend 
a college  of  moderate  excellence  if  we  thereby  deprive  the  whole  state 
of  a first-class  University? 

Since  the  program  is  the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number  we 
inquire  whether  the  existence  of  one  strong  central  University  in  the 
state  would  not  create  a more  generally  widespread  sentiment  for  it 
and  whether  the  net  result  would  be  a larger  total  attendance  than 
we  now  have  at  the  separate  institutions?  If  this  should  be  the  case 
the  argument  for  schools  in  different  parts  of  the  State  as  it  is'  made 
by  the  spokesmen  for  the  opponents  of  consolidation  falls  to  the 
ground.  Again  we  look  to  the  experience  of  other  states. 

Total  number  of  students  for  each  100,000  of  population. 


Consolidated 

Uncons'olidated 

Minnesota 

201 

Indiana 

. 166 

Nebraska  

303 

Kansas  

238 

Wisconsin 

192 

Michigan  

169 

The  average  for  the  three  consolidated  states  is  232,  and  for  the 
unconsolidated  states  the  average  is  191.  In  this  table  the  number 
of  students  in  each  University  which  are  not  residents  of  the  state 
are  omitted.  Thus,  in  the  case  of  Wisconsin  we  omit  the  2,343  stu- 
dents who  came  from  other  states.  Iowa  is  omitted  for  reasons  given 
in  paragraph  18.  Illinois  is’  omitted  because  that  state  has  two  great 
Universities  besides  its  State  University. 

23.  Not  only  do  the  consolidated  schools  attract  a larger  propor- 
tion of  the  people  of  their  states  than  do  the  unconsolidated  schools, 
but  they  actually  give  them  a better  quality  of  education.  The 
smaller  and  less  known  unconsolidated  schools  cannot  retain  their  best 
teachers,  even  at  the  same  salary  a teacher  will  move  to  the  stronger 

—20— 


school.  The  prestige  of  the  school,  the  stimulus  of  a strong  intellec- 
tual center  are  of  considerable  value  to  the  intelligent  young  instructor. 
The  consolidated  schools  have  better  libraries'  and  laboratories.  The 
standard  of  work  is  likely  to  be  higher  because  the  scramble  for  stu- 
dents which  often  causes  the  smaller  schools  to  admit  and  retain  unfit 
students  now,  would  not  effect  the  stronger  schools’.  There  are  more 
lectures  by  great  men,  more  high-class  musicals,  more  opportunities 
in  every  respect. 

A degree  from  a strong  University  is  actually  worth  more  than 
one  from  a small  college.  Manufacturing  concerns  look  to  the  strong 
schools’  for  their  experts.  City  Superintendents  take  the  graduates 
of  the  strong  Universities  in  preference  to  those  from  the  smaller 
schools.  Big  business  is  always  looking  for  young  men  of  broad  intel- 
ligence in  the  hope  that  they  may  develop  the  element  of  leadership 
and  administrative  ability.  The  strong  Universities  and  not  the  small 
obscure  college  are  looked  to  for  such  men.  For  this  reason  University 
students  migrate  from  states  with  weak,  unconsolidated  schools  to 
the  stronger  schools.  Last  year  there  were  at  the  University  of  Wis- 
consin 2,343  students  from  other  states,  while  at  the  two  separate 
schools  of  Indiana  there  were  only  437  students  from  outside  the  state. 
Of  these  the  larger  number  were  studying  engineering  at  the  com- 
paratively strong  engineering  department  at  Purdue.  There  were 
only  58  students  from  outside  the  state  at  the  State  University  of 
Indiana. 

Three  unconsolidated  schools  of  Ohio  had  947  students  from  out- 
side the  state,  while  the  University  of  Illinois  had  1600.  Up  to  this 
time  the  number  of  students  from  Montana  which  have  gone  out  of  the 
State  to  attend  the  larger  Universities,  has'  been  as  great  as  the  com- 
bined actual  college  attendance  at  the  three  State  institutions.  About 
80  per  cent  of  the  teachers  in  our  high  schools'  were  trained  outside 
the  State. 

24.  The  strong  consolidated  Universities  have  undertaken  a large 
amount  of  public  service  that  is  not  performed  by  any  of  the  uncon- 
solidated schools.  Mention  has  been  made  of  the  many  scientific  and 
public  service  bureaus  of  the  University  of  Illinois.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  the  value  to  the  farmers  of  Illinois  of  this  agricultural  survey 
now  in  progress  will  far  exceed  the  total  cost  of  maintaining  the  whole 
University  for  all  time  to  come.  The  University  of  Wis’consin  has,  no 
doubt,  paid  for  itself  in  actual  money  returned  to  the  state  through 
its  legislative  advisory  bureau.  The  State  of  Wisconsin  is  covered 
with  a network  of  extension  centers.  Last  year  the  University  had 
6,126  students  registered  in  correspondence  study.  Through  its  exten- 


—21— 


sion  department  this  University  reaches  several  times  as  many  people 
as  actually  come  to  it  to  study.  The  ideals  of  such  a University  may 
be  gleaned  from  the  following; 

‘‘The  modem  commonwealth  University  recognizes  three 
main  functions'.  (1)  That  of  teaching  the  properly  qualified 
student  who  is  admitted  for  residence  instruction ; (2)  of  carry- 
ing original  investigations,  or  research,  and  promoting  the 
spirit  of  creative  scholarship;  (3)  of  disseminating  iLseful 
knowledge  that  has  been  accumulated  through  productive  schol- 
arship to  all  classes  of  citizens,  and  of  adopting  it  to  their 
requirements  as  far  as  possible. 

“The  object  of  this  University  in  carrying  on  extension 
work  is  to  serve  the  citizens  of  the  commonwealth  who  are 
unable  to  attend  established  educational  institutions,  to  stimu- 
late and  guide  them  in  the  pursuit  of  a higher  and  more  effec- 
tive education,  to  enable  them  to  achieve  more  nearly  the  best 
things  in  life  of  which  they  are  capable — in  short,  to  build  up 
an  extra-mural  University,  which  shall  embrace  the  whole  state 
and  which  shall  have  live,  active  members  in  every  community, 
who  are  in  intimate  connection  with  the  mother  institution. 
The  constant  aim  of  the  Regents  has  been  to  make  the  Univer- 
sity the  center  of  every  movement  which  concerns  the  interest 
of  the  state — to  give  every  man  a chance  to  obtain  the  highest 
possible  education  at  the  smallest  possible  cost — to  bring  the 
home  and  the  University  in  close  touch.” 

Similar  work  is  being  instituted  in  Minnesota  and  Illinois.  Is  it 
not  striking  that  in  Indiana  and  Michigan  such  work  is  almost  entirely 
lacking  ? 

25.  The  situation  in  Wisconsin  has  received  special  attention  by 
the  Montana  politicians  who  are  opposing  consolidation.  The  Univer- 
sity of  Wisconsin  has  made  enemies  by  the  splendid  work  it  has  done. 
The  corporation  tax  which  pays  the  state  $2,000,000  a year,  was  due 
almost  directly  to  the  enlightening  Avork  of  the  departments  of  econom- 
ics and  social  science  in  the  University. 

The  enemies  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin  are  backed  b}^  such 
men  as  Senator  Ike  Stevenson,  who  was  ousted  from  the  United  States 
Senate,  and  men  of  his  character  in  Wisconsin  who  do  not  Avant  the 
people  to  have  too  much  control  over  their  oaaui  affairs  or  to  be  too 
Avell  educated  in  political,  governmental  and  economic  matters. 

The  opponents  of  consolidation  are  giving  their  approval  to  the 
vicious  and  hypocritical  attacks  being  made  on  the  UniA’^ersity  of  Wis- 
consin by  the  old  political  bosses  of  that  state.  The  old  political  bosses 


—22 


have  been  ousted  in  Wisconsin  and  their  places  have  been  taken  by 
men  who  have  been  single-minded  in  their  devotion  to  the  purposes  of 
furnishing  the  people  with  correct  information  and  with  expert  advice 
upon  questions  which  concern  them.  This  situation  the  politicians  are 
distorting  by  telling  us'  about  a fight  which  they  say  the  people  of 
Wisconsin  are  making  on  their  University. 

These  unprincipled  men  do  not  hesitate  to  attack  the  one  institu- 
tion which  has  brought  the  state  more  fame  than  all  her  other  institu- 
tions combined.  The  University  of  Wisconsin  has  paid  for  itself  many 
times  over  by  the  extra  activities  alone.  The  corporation  tax  is  enough 
to  defray  all  expenses  of  the  University.  And  yet  this  institution 
costs  the  people  of  the  state  only  about  90  cents  for  every  man,  woman 
and  child.  Would  not  the  people  of  Montana  be  glad  to  spend  that 
much  to  have  an  institution  like  the  University  of  Wisconsin? 

26.  It  is  frequently  asserted  that  Butte  is  the  proper  place  for 
the  School  of  Mines,  and  that  for  this  reason  the  consolidation  bill 
should  be  voted  down.  They  say  that  in  Butte  mining  is  “in  the  air” 
and  that  students  absorb  it  unconsciously.  Now  the  simple  fact  is 
that  the  students  in  the  School  of  Mines  spend  only  a very  small  frac- 
tion of  their  time  in  the  mines.  Further,  Butte  has  only  one  kind  of 
mines,  the  Copper  Mine,  with  the  by-products'  of  zinc,  etc.  To  get  a 
broad  view  of  mining  the  students  at  Butte  are  obliged  to  take  trips 
to  other  parts  of  Montana,  to  Idaho  and  other  states.  Last  spring  the 
papers  of  the  state  mentioned  that  the  senior  class  of  the  School  of 
Mines  took  a trip  to  the  Black  Hills  in  South  Dakota.  Copper  mining 
is  only  one  of  the  many  different  kinds  of  mining.  If  the  School  of 
Mines'  were  at  Missoula  or  Bozeman  the  result  would  simply  be  that 
the  students  would  be  farther  away  from  one  kind  of  mining  (copper) 
and  nearer  to  some  other  kind.  A one  or  two  weeks’  trip  to  Butte  or 
Anaconda  would  suffice  for  the  copper  mining.  Those  who  think  that 
a successful  School  of  Mines  must  be  located  in  a mining  city,  should 
remember  that  the  greatest  schools  of  mining  in  the  United  States  are 
in  New  York  and  Boston.  The  greatest  Schools  of  Mines  in  Europe 
are  in  London,  Paris  and  Berlin. 

The  simple  truth  of  the  matter  is  that  over  80  per  cent  of  a 
mining  course  is  ordinary  engineering  of  one  kind  and  another.  It 
makes  little  difference  whether  you  make  a hole  in  the  ground  to  dig 
iron,  coal  or  copper,  or  whether  you  make  it  for  a tunnel  for  a railway. 
The  engineering  problems  are  very  much  alike.  But  let  us  look  the 
facts  squarely  in  the  face  about  our  own  School'  of  Mines.  During 
the  past  year  fifty-five  students  were  registered,  which  means  an 
average  attendance  of  less  than  fifty.  There  were  seven  different 
teachers,  each  giving  instruction  in  several  subjects.  One  taught 

—23— 


t 


mathematics,  English  and  physics.  Without  saying  unkind  things 
about  the  School  of  Mines  we  may  nevertheless  tell  the  truth  about  it. 
In  no  well-equipped  school  would  a man  be  allowed  to  teach  more 
than  one  of  these  subjects.  A man  who  is  teaching  several  subjects 
cannot  possibly  be  an  authority  on  any  one  of  them  and  he  is  probably 
mediocre  in  all.  In  the  stronger  high  schools  in  this  country  each 
teacher  specializes  in  one  department,  devoting  all  his  spare  time  and 
energy  to  keep  abreast  with  the  scientific  and  pedagogical  progress 
that  is  being  made  in  that  department.  It  would  take  at  least  $100,- 
000.00  a year  to  run  a separate,  well-equipped  School  of  Mines  even 
if  it  had  only  a dozen  students.  Last  year  President  Bowman  calcu- 
lated that  by  adding  one  professor  to  the  staff  of  a University  having 
a well  equipped  school  of  engineering  we  should  have  a complete  school 
of  mines’. 

The  students  of  the  School  of  Mines  of  Butte  have  not  even  the 
merest  taste  of  college  life.  Instead  of  the  various  groups  at  the  Uni- 
versity, where  young  men  discuss  the  ideas  of  youth,  and  form  life- 
long and  numerous  friendships,  the  students  at  the  School  of  Mines, 
unless  they  live  in  Butte,  drift  into  the  city  to  spend  their  spare  hours. 
How  much  college  life  is  possible  at  the  School  of  Mines,  when  the 
college  has  only  twenty  students  who  do  not  live  in  their  own  homes. 
It  is'  commonplace  to  remark  that  the  real  college  life  is  made  by  those 
who  live  at  the  school,  that  is  by  those  who  do  not  go  home  over  night. 
This  is  so  well  understood,  that  in  cities  like  New  York,  Boston  and 
Chicago,  young  men  and  women  whose  homes  are  in  these  cities,  fre- 
quently go  to  live  in  one  of  the  University  Dormitories  during  one  or 
two  years  of  their  college  life.  Will  it  not  be  far  better  to  have  this’ 
school  a part  of  the  State  University  ? Let  thes'e  boys  who  are  study- 
ing mining  get  the  benefit  of  the  teaching  of  specialists.  This  is  an 
age  of  specialists.  The  world  is  so  complicated  that  he  who  is  not  a 
specialist  is  not  much  of  anything.  Let  these  boys  have  four  years  of 
real  college  life.  Let  them  breathe  the  atmosphere  of  the  University. 
Let  them  be  able  to  say  when  they  graduate  that  they  have  actually 
been  to  college.  Let  them  benefit  by  the  social  and  intellectual  life 
of  a clean  University  group.  By  so  doing  you  will  immeasurably 
benefit  the  students  in  Mining,  and  at  the  same  time  help  the  Univer- 
sity by  giving  it  greater  breadth  and  more  points  of  contact  with  the 
world  of  affairs.  Last  year  only  8 boys  from  Montana  and  from  out- 
side of  Silver  Bow  county  attended  the  School  of  Mines.  This  shows' 
how  little  this  school  now  means  in  the  state  as  a whole. 

It  would  be  as  cheap  for  the  state  to  send  these  boys  to  Columbia 
or  to  the  Massachusetts  Institute  and  to  pay  aU  their  expenses  as  to 
keep  this  little  school  going.  If  you  add  $10,000  a year  for  mainte- 

—24— 


nance  in  a well-equipped  University,  you  will  get  a school  of  mines 
incomparably  stronger  than  the  one  you  now  have. 

V.  HARMONY  AND  CO-OPERATION  ARE  IMPOSSIBLE  IN 
UNCONSOLIDATED  SCHOOLS. 

27.  Those  who  oppose  consolidation  say  that  they  deprecate  strife. 
They  may  well  deprecate  the  strife  which  has  been  going  on  in  this 
state  for  more  than  twenty  years.  But  we  may  be  sure  that  if  the  his- 
tory of  other  states  means  anything,  this  strife  which  has  been  going  on 
for  the  last  twenty  years  will  never  cease  until  the  crime  which  was 
committed  at  that  time  shall  have  been  set  right.  There  is  strife  in 
every  state  in  the  Union  in  which  the  University  is  not  consolidated. 
There  is  strife  in  Oregon,  in  Washington,  in  Kansas,  in  Iowa,  in 
Indiana,  and  in  Michigan.  The  state  of  Iowa  is  some  50  years  older 
than  Montana  and  still  the  struggle  which  has  been  going  on  for  the 
last  few  years  in  that  state  has  been  far  more  bitter  than  anything 
we  have  yet  seen  in  this  connection  in  Montana.  To  one  who  studies 
the  history  of  Iowa,  the  hopelessness  of  her  Higher  Education  situa- 
tion is  brought  home  with  irresistable  force.  Judging  by  this,  when 
may  we  hope  for  the  strife  to  cease  in  Montana?  We,  too,  deprecate 
strife.  We  believe  that  the  inevitable  strife  which  always  exists  in 
the  states  having  separate  institutions  is  a powerful  factor  in  keeping 
those  institutions  below  the  first  rank.  There  is  no  real  team  work 
in  those  states ; there  is  no  great  pride  in  the  institutions  of  higher 
learning.  But  deprecate  the  strife  as  we  may,  it  will  continue  as  long 
as  patriotic  and  earnest  people  see  that  another  system  is  better  and 
that  it  can  be  obtained  at  a comparatively  insignificant  temporary 
sacrifice.  You  may  cry  “Peace,  Peace,  but  there  is'  no  Peace!”  Is 
it  not  of  the  highest  significance  that  in  the  states  that  have  consoli- 
dated universities  there  is  not  even  a suggestion  that  the  state  should 
build  other  competing  colleges'  in  various  parts  of  the  state.  There  is 
not  even  a suggestion  in  Illinois,  or  Minnesota,  or  California,  or  Mis- 
souri, or  Wisconsin,  or  Nebraska,  that  the  agricultural  college  should 
be  moved  away  from  the  University. 

28.  If  the  University  is  consolidated  we  shall  have  one  body  of 
alumni  working  in  harmony  for  their  alma  mater,  not  as  now,  spend- 
ing a large  share  of  their  energy  in  finding  the  weak  points'  of  their 
rival.  This  unity  and  harmony  in  a large  body  of  alumni  is  one  of  the 
things  which  makes  it  worth  while  to  be  a graduate  of  a University. 
When  each  town  and  city  in  the  state  shall  have  a number  of  gradu- 
ates of  the  same  State  University,  a strong  institution  of  which  the 
state  is  proud,  then  the  boys  and  girls  will  begin  to  find  it  really 

—25— 


worth  while  to  go  to  their  home  University  and  become  members  of 
these  same  groups.  The  voters  of  the  state  can  secure  this  oppor- 
tunity for  their  sons  and  daughters  if  they  vote  now  to  consolidate 
these  schools. 

29.  The  separate  institutions  have  become  a permanent  asset  to 
those  who  are  engaged  in  political  barter.  This  is  how  it  is  worked. 
The  president  of  your  State  University  goes  to  Helena  to  ask  for  an 
appropriation  for  the  University.  Before  it  is  granted  it  becomes  nec- 
essary for  the  political  leaders  of  Missoula  to  go  to  Helena,  and  if 
the  request  is  granted  it  is  usually  part  of  a bargain  in  which  the 
politicians’  of  Missoula  surrender  some  advantage  to  the  State  Admin- 
istration. When  the  president  of  the  Agricultural  College  lays  his 
needs  before  the  rulers’  of  the  state  the  process  is  the  same. 

The  result  is  that  these  separate  schools  are  a permanent  “trading 
asset”  to  our  politicians.  “Will  you  have  so  many  game  wardens 
appointed  or  will  you  have  an  extra  appropriation  for  your  school”? 
That  is  the  sort  of  a question  the  politicians  of  these  towns  are  fre- 
quently pondering  over.  The  schools  are  played  off  one  against  the 
other  to  the  supposed  advantage  of  the  state  administration.  This  is 
not  due  to  the  particular  personnel  of  any  one  administration,  but  is 
the  inevitable  consequence  of  a system  which  invites  this  sort  of  thing. 

VI.  SELECTION  OP  A LOCATION  BY  A COMMISSION  IS  NOT 
UN-DEMOCRATIC  AND  IS  ADVISABLE 

30.  The  history  of  this  bill  as  given  in  Part  1 shows  why  it  was 
concluded  to  leave  the  selection  of  location  to  a commission.  It  is  a 
well-settled  principle  that  the  voters  may  delegate  to  experts  certain 
technical  work.  Not  10  per  cent  of  the  voters  of  the  state  have  ever 
seen  either  of  the  cities  and  obviously  it  would  be  impossible  for  them 
to  make  the  proper  investigation  personally.  Those  who  will  select  the 
location  of  the  University  are  men  who  are  intimately  acquainted  with 
the  needs  of  a University.  They  will  pay  no  attention  to  local  preju- 
dices. The  voters  of  the  state  may  rest  assured  that  the  selection  will 
be  made  wisely  and  for  the  best  interest  of  the  whole  state.  Again 
we  quote  Superintendent  Davee: 

THE  NEBRASKA  COMMISSION  OP  GREAT  EDUCATORS  A 

PRECEDENT. 

“There  are  those  who  oppose  consolidation  on  the  ground 
that  the  present  bill  provides  for  a commission  of  great  educa- 
tors to  decide  the  location  as'  between  Bozeman  and  Missoula. 


—2  6 — 


I hope  the  voters  of  the  state  will  remember  that  this  is  a mere 
detail.  The  great  question  is  that  of  consolidation.  But  if  we 
want  a precedent  for  the  use  of  a commission  in  such  matters  we 
need  only  to  go  to  Nebraska.  The  people  of  that  state  are  to 
vote  this  fall  on  the  question  whether  they  shall  continue  the 
college  of  liberal  arts  in  the  heart  of  the  city  of  Lincoln  or 
move  it  just  out  of  town  with  the  Agricultural  College.  The 
Nebraska  Farmers  ’ Congress  passed  a resolution  inviting  Presi- 
dent Vincent  of  Minnesota,  President  Thompson  of  Ohio, 
President  Van  Hise  of  Wisconsin,  and  President  Snyder  of 
Michigan,  an  outside  commission,  to  make  a survey  of  condi- 
tions in  Nebraska  and  report  their  recommendations  to  the  peo- 
ple. The  commission  has  just  reported  and  their  unanimous 
recommendation  is  to  move  from  the  city  to  the  farm.  The 
farmers  of  Nebraska  realized  that  they  did  not  have  the  time 
and  ability  to  investigate  this  great  question  and  they  preferred 
the  recommendation  of  a commission  of  experts'  whose  ability 
and  character  are  above  suspicion,  to  the  recommendation  of 
local  “campaigners  whose  impartiality  is  often  far  from  being 
above  suspicion.”  I believe  the  voters  of  Montana  will  take  a 
similar  view  of  our  own  situation  and  will  not  allow  the  great 
issue  of  consolidation  to  be  clouded  by  minor  details.” 

VII.  THE  ‘ ‘ BREACH  OF  FAITH  ’ ’ ARGUMENT  IS  NOT  SOUND 

31.  The  opponents  of  consolidation  have  made  much  of  what 
they  call  “Keeping  faith  with  the  people,”  in  the  cities  in  which 
these  schools  are  now  located.  They  even  make  the  point  that  we 
should  fail  to  keep  faith  with  the  U.  S.  Government  if  we  consolidate 
the  School  of  Agriculture  with  the  University.  The  last  point  is  so 
hopelessly  silly  that  it  requires  no  attention.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
suggestion  that  the  United  States  Government  feels  that  states  like 
Nebraska,  Illinois,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  New  York,  Missouri  or  Cali- 
fornia, are  not  keeping  faith  with  the  United  States.  There  is  every 
indication  that  the  U.  S.  Government  is  highly  satisfied  vdth  the 
arrangement  in  these  states.  If  the  U.  S.  Government  desired  sep- 
arate schools  of  agriculture,  they  would  surely  object  to  the  practically 
complete  Universities  which  have  been  developed  at  these  schools  in 
such  states  as  Indiana,  Iowa  and  Kansas,  and  such  as  our  good  friends 
in  Bozeman  are  trying  very  hard  to  develop  there.  We  now  turn  to  the 
question  of  “keeping  faith”  with  the  cities  in  which  these  schools  are 
located.  They  weep  over  those  who  come  to  Missoula  or  to  Bozeman, 
bought  property  there  and  built  homes  in  the  expectation  that  these 
schools  would  remain  where  they  now  are.  But  precisely  the  people 

—27— 


who  are  entering  this  complaint  were  instrumental  in  removing  the 
school  of  engineering  from  Missoula  and  the  school  of  pharmacy  from 
Bozeman. 

Now  let  us  see  just  what  the  theory  is.  It  seems*  to  be  about  as 
follows : 

If  the  state  creates  an  institution  which  increases  the  value 
of  real  estate  in  its  vicinity,  then  the  state  is  morally  bound  to 
keep  up  such  institutions,  whether  the  best  interests'  of  the 
state  require  it  or  not. 

Surely  no  such  principle  has  been  recognized  heretofore  in  the 
United  States.  The  U.  S.  Government  has  built  forts  in  various  parts 
of  this  country,  and  especially  here  in  the  northwest,  but  this  principle 
has  never  yet  been  invoked  to  compel  the  Government  to  continue 
them  when  they  were  no  longer  necessary.  The  Government  has  built 
ship  yards  in  various  ports  which  have  enhanced  the  value  of  proper!}^ 
around  them,  but  they  have  been  abandoned  from  time  to  time  as  it 
was  found  the  work  could  be  done  more  economically  elsewhere.  Hun- 
dreds of  millions  have  been  invested  in  this  country  on  canals  and  in 
deepening  rivers,  thereby  enhancing  the  value  of  adjoining  real  estate, 
but  these  rivers  and  these  canals'  have  been  abandoned,  both  by  the 
United  States  and  by  the  various  states  from  time  to  time  when  they 
were  found  unprofitable.  Harbors  have  been  built  and  improved  and 
again  abandoned  Avhen  they  were  found  unnecessary.  The  govern- 
ment built  post  roads,  which  made  living  worth  while  in  remote  nooks 
of  this  and  other  states,  and  then  abandoned  them  to  the  evident  loss 
of  settlers.  A town  is  built  on  a railway,  hotels  are  erected  to  accom- 
modate travelers.  Ten  years  later  increase  of  business  makes  it  advis- 
able for  the  railroad  company  to  straighten  its  road  and  this  in- 
volves building  the  main  station  a mile  or  two  away  from  the 
original  station.  A howl  is  set  up  because  the  value  of  the  property 
around  the  old  station  is  decreased,  but  the  raihvay  is  straightened 
nevertheless.  Factories  are  built  and  later  as  new  developments  and 
methods  of  business  and  manufacturing  make  it  advisable  some  of 
them  are  abandoned,  while  others  are  enlarged.  The  doctrine  proposed 
would,  if  carried  out,  stop  all  progress.  Some  inconvenience  and  some 
loss  are  inevitable  accompaniments  of  change,  and  we  can  never  have 
progress  without  change. 

But  let  us  look  a little  more  closely  into  this  particular  case. 
Those  who'  know  just  what  took  place  when  these  institutions  were 
located  where  they  now  are,  and  who  are  not  anxious  to  conceal  from 
us  the  truth  about  it,  say  it  was  one  of  the  coarsest  political  deals'  in 
the  history  of  the  state.  There  was  a little  pork  barrel  to  be  divided 
and  each  town  which  had  the  required  political  strength  secured  a 

_28— 


slice  of  it.  We  are  told  that  there  was  not  the  remotest  thought  even 
of  considering  which  place  was  the  best  adapted  for  each  institution. 
The  main  reason  for  creating  three  instead  of  one  institution  was  that 
that  would  enable  a larger  number  of  politicians  in  Helena  to  come 
back  with  a piece  of  bacon  to  their  constituents. 

This  unctuous  talk  about  how  well  our  fathers  wrought  in  this 
case  is  nauseating,  and  no  man  who  knows  conditions  in  Montana 
would  ever  indulge  in  it  unless  he  is  over  anxious  to  find  arguments, 
for  a cause,  the  real  reasons  for  which  are  very  different  and  may 
even  be  carefully  concealed.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  that  political 
deal  of  twenty  years  ago  shall  forever  damn  Montana,  to  have  a second 
rate  higher  educational  system?  We  know  it  is  written  that  the  sins 
of  the  fathers  shall  be  visited  on  their  children  in  the  third  and 
fourth  generation.  In  this  case  we  are  attempting  to  visit  this  abori- 
ginal sin  of  the  state  upon  our  children  for  all  generations  to  come. 
Is  this  fair?  Shall  we  permit  this  early  blunder  to  inflict  its  evil 
consequences  upon  those  millions  to  come  who  are  not  in  the  slightest 
way  responsible  for  it? 

VIII.  OPINIONS  OF  GREAT  EDUCATORS. 

32.  In  connection  with  the  movement  last  year  for  the  consolida- 
tion of  our  state  schools,  the  committee  for  the  Greater  University 
received  letters  from  the  leading  educators  in  various  parts  of  the 
country.  Almost  without  exception  they  support  the  consolidation 
movement.  Their  statements  are  of  much  significance  at  this  time, 
for  they  are  specialists  in  matters  of  economy  and  efficiency  relating 
to  educational  administration.  Following  are  a few  of  these  letters : 

Consolidation  is  exactly  in  line  with  the  policy  which  I earnestly  advo- 
cated some  years  ago  before  the  Association  of  Southern  Colleges  and  Secon- 
dary Schools.  I think  that  many  of  our  states,  which  are  now  supporting  a 
number  of  separate,  more  or  less  feeble  institutions,  would  profit  greatlj''  by 
concentration.  D.  F.  HOUSTON,  Secretary  of  Agriculture. 

President  Washington  University,  St.  Louis.  (On  leave  of  absence). 

I have  placed  myself  upon  record  on  various  occasions;  indeed  I have 
repeatedly  said  that  in  those  states  of  the  West  where  the  higher  institutions 
have  been  subdivided,  it  would  be  a great  blessing  to  the  state  and  would 
save  unnumbered  millions,  if  by  some  disaster  of  nature  all  existing  struc- 
tures and  materials  in  them  were  completely  destroyed;  if,  in  consequence 
of  this,  one  higher  educational  institution  would  replace  the  several  separated 
ones. 

PYom  the  material  point  of  view  the  advantages  of  concentration  over 
dispersion  are  inestimable.  As  soon  as  the  state  of  Montana  becomes  devel- 
oped, the  savings  will  amount  to  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  every  year, 
and  that  with  greater  efficiency  than  would  be  possible  from  a larger  sum 
spent  at  the  several  institutions  in  different  parts  of  the  state. 

CHAS.  R.  VAN  HISE,  Pres.  Univ.  of  Wis. 


—29— 


Every  state  that  originally  adopted  a policy  of  separation  is  now  con- 
sidering some  form  of  reversal  of  its  former  policy.  Idaho’s  experience  and 
decision  is  in  favor  of  consolidation. 

JAMES  A.  MACLEAN,  Pres.  Univ.  of  Idaho. 

I think  that  there  is  no  other  matter  so  important  in  higher  education  in 
these  Western  states  as  to  get  these  institutions  all  together.  In  a state  as 
scantily  populated  as  Montana  every  institution  doing  work  beyond  the  high- 
school  stage  should  be  consolidated  in  one  place  where  a competent  body  of 
teachers  could  be  maintained  and  a library  adequate  for  advanced  work. 

DAVID  STARR  JORDAN,  Ex-Pres.  Leland- Stanford  University. 

I give  to  the  movement  for  consolidation  of  the  higher  educational  insti- 
tutions of  Montana  my  unequivocal  and  heartiest  support.  Montana  can  have 
one  of  the  great  universities  of  the  land  if  it  consolidates.  If  it  tries  to  main- 
tain four  institutions,  it  cannot.  Everywhere  in  the  country  the  tendency  is 
toward  consolidation.  BENJ.  I.  WHEELER,  Pres.  Univ.  of  California. 

I am  heartily  in  favor  of  centralization  of  higher  education  into  an  insti- 
tution under  a single  management.  The  unified  administration  of  a state’s 
higher  education  is  the  only  sound  principle.  Concentration  means  economy 
and  efficiency.  GEORGE  E.  VINCENT,  Pres.  Univ.  of  Minn. 

I have  often  wondered  why  a progressive  state  like  Montana  has  been  so 
long  content  to  waste  its  energies  in  trying  to  make  duplicate  institutions 
answer  the  purpose  of  a true  University. 

ROBERT  LEWERS,  Vice-Pres.  Univ.  of  Nevada, 

By  all  means  consolidate  your  higher  educational  institutions  in  one  site 
and  under  one  administration.  J.  T.  KINGSBURY,  Pres.  Univ.  of  Utah. 

There  is  probably  not  a state  in  the  Union  which  has  already  set  out 
along  decentralized  lines,  but  what  would  now  give  much  to  have  the  state 
institutions  together. 

JAMES  E,  RUSSELL,  Dean  Teachers’  College,  Columbia  University. 

Economy  and  efficiency  both  require  consolidation. 

W.  O.  THOMPSON,  Pres.  Ohio  State  Univ. 

The  general  proposition  of  consolidating  state  institutions  meets  with  my 
hearty  approval.  The  states  which  have  scattered  these  institutions  have 
done  so  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  efficiency  of  their  educational  wmrk, 
undoubtedly.  HARRY  PRATT  JUDSON,  Pres.  Univ.  of  Chicago. 

I wish  to  say  that  I thoroughly  believe  in  the  consolidation  of  educational 
institutions.  MASON  S.  STONE,  Supt.  of  Educ.,  Vermont. 

I don’t  know  of  any  educator  of  first  rank  in  the  country  who  does  not 
take  this  same  view  (for  consolidation). 

EDMUND  J.  JAMES,  Pres.  Univ.  of  Illinois. 

The  time  has  come  for  us  to  exercise  in  the  administration  of  educational 
affairs  the  same  practical  intelligence  that  has  impelled  business  corporations 
to  unite  and  co-operate  for  a school  of  public  welfare.  There  is  the  avoidance 
of  waste  and  the  increase  of  efficiency  in  such  an  undertaking, 

BRUCE  R.  PAYNE,  Pres.  Geo.  Peabody  College  for  Teachers. 

I am  of  the  opinion  that  even  better  results  could  have  been  reached  in 
Michigan  if  in  the  beginning  all  of  our  higher  institutions  had  been  located 
in  one  place  and  developed  as  a single  institution. 

H.  B.  HUTCHINS,  Pres.  Univ.  of  Michigan. 

The  plan  has  my  unqualified  approval. 

S.  AVERY,  Chancellor  Univ.  of  Nebraska. 

This  is  unprejudiced  and  expert  authority.  The  citizens  of  Mon- 
tana should  consider  the  consolidation  movement  unselfishly  and  intel- 
ligently in  the  light  of  the  evidence  here  presented. 


—30— 


[ 

> 

\ 

i 


? 


t 


